Proper capitalism should mean that you try and maximise your profit by lowering the price and increasing sales.
Sort of. Video games are subject to monopolistic competition. Each producer has something that sets their product apart from others. For example, Halo 3 and TF2 aren't exact substitutes. As a result, producers have some say over the price of their product.
The long and short of it is that because of the way the game market is structured, it doesn't make sense for a video game producer to price their product as low as possible. Product differentiation means that firms will gain more profit by pricing their products above what would normally be the efficient price.
how'd you like to live with someone for 40 years and lose your house when he dies because you can't automatically inherit the place of residence?
You don't need new laws to fix that. You need a better lawyer and/or real estate agent. If you establish yourselves as joint tenants with rights of survivorship then whoever dies first leaves the property to the other. Unmarried couples do this all the time.
Put another way, the problem involving gays and lesbians not being able to visit each other in the hospital or other rights of survivorship is a contractual one. Most gays/lesbians want to address that issue via marriage and its surrounding privileges. By redefining the classical definition of marriage, they hope to bring about the implied contractual changes that come with it. Without stating my beliefs on gay marriage (for or against), I think these particular issues are better addressed in the realm of contract law itself. As an adult, I should be able to leave my house to whomever I choose. I should also be able to specify hospital visits from whoever I choose. Marriage has got nothing to do with it.
Can you link to the proof of innocence? I'm not saying she's not, but I can't seem to find it in the links FTA. Most of the articles are very light on facts.
I looked it up last year and "ethics" and "morals" were two separate things.
You should be looking less at Wikipedia and more at Plato, Acquinas, and Kant. In truth, ethics is a subject that one has to study in order to understand the definition thereof.
Republicans don't seem as whiny to me as Democrats, possibly because Democrats rely on others (usually the government) to solve problems, and Republicans (used to, at least) rely on individual initiative. Of course, that last observation might be slightly controversial
It's not controversial, it's flame-bait. The argument of conservative reliance on individual initiative is a joke. Republicans simply rely on government to solve a different set of problems. Faith-based initiatives, abstinence-only education, a war in Iraq that costs $10 billion per month. Let's not even mention unfunded mandates like No Child Left Behind (admittedly a bi-partisan cock up).
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans prefer deficits to taxes. Democrats at least have the stones to tax people for the money they want to spend.
I agree. I'm a doctor in Spain and the system works exactly that way. Here it's not the insurance companies, but the "benevolent health system" that press us into delaying or denying tests and treatments to people. The exact people that see a nice amount of their income substracted de facto by the health system.
Yes, but ceteris paribus, at least these people don't have to fight tooth and nail over copays, deductibles, or whether or not they're retroactively covered for procedures that have already been performed.
It's anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but I had knee surgery last year - the most painful part hasn't been the rehab, it's been dealing with my insurance company over coverage. Everyone I know has a story about getting treatment or a prescription that they believed their insurance covered, only to get billed by the provider months later because their claim was denied. The quality of care may be the same in a UHC system, but at least we won't have to wonder: "I think I'm covered, but I can never be sure. Am I going to have to pay for this?"
Beware the Bradley Effect. If the polls are correct, then Obama will win the election in a landslide. That said, if they're not - and there's some evidence that every race will be tighter than they appear, then he may only win by a few votes (states). I'm hoping that the Bradley Effect is not a factor in this election, but god damn some people are racist.
Otherwise I reject the idea of income redistribution.
Aside from national defense, government's purpose is almost exclusively that of income redistribution. This comes often in the form of "correcting" externalities (subsidies, tax credits, or pigouvian taxation), but most people only complain when it comes in the form of direct transfer payments such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. My point here is simply that most people advocate throwing the baby out with the bath water when they complain about "income redistribution" (e.g. tax subsidies for $technology, or investment in $researchProgram) , which is not necessarily the most advisable course of action.
Personally, I'm not a fan of most of BHO's redistributive policies - where possible, markets are the most efficient policy. But right now I think this country's got bigger fish to fry, like the war in Iraq (get out), the war in Afghanistan (get back in), and civil liberties (get out).
This crisis doesn't need government intervention. That is to say we don't need to have a $13 trillion GDP or a stable economy for the next two years. But I'd sure as hell call them "nice to have."
The biggest problem I see right now is that most people have absolutely zero idea of how this calamity is going to affect them. They believe that the losses are largely either imaginary, or limited to some financial segment of the population that will never concern them. They believe, as some argue rationally ignorant individuals ought to, that this won't ever affect them.
When the recession comes (well, when it deepens) these same people will blame "Wall Street Fat Cats" and the government having gotten us into this mess in the first place. They will never blame themselves for opposing the bailout or for not understanding the inherent interconnectedness of the "streets" they're so fond of talking about.
For what it's worth, the bailout was a shit sandwich. It was a terrible plan, with too much cruft and not enough oversight in the right places. But it was definitely better than playing Russian roulette with the economy. There's a slim chance that the credit markets will come back without getting rid of the toxic securities floating around - and if they do, the naysayers will have been right, but for the wrong reasons.
I do have to take issue with this thought, though:
That's because you think that modern financiers are either rational or competent at what they do. They are neither.
Modern financiers know very well what they are doing, and if you were in their shoes you would have been wise to do exactly the same. The first lesson of economics is this: people respond to incentives. The problem this time, as with most crises is that the incentives were skewed.
But do you have any reason for thinking shrink-wrap licenses are valid other than recent precedent? The precedents I've seen claimed to support shrink-wrap licenses all have serious flaws if you examine them.
Case law is part of the law (see: stare decisis).
Look, IANAL, but I helped get my fiancee through three years of law school (part of the reason IANAL). She's done work specifically on IP law and EULAs. I have several friends that are lawyers that work on this kind of stuff. I have more than a passing understanding of the law in these areas. So please, trust me when I say you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the law here.
You can argue until you're blue in the face about how judges should rule, or how the law should be interpreted. That's what you've been doing in this thread, and others. But I'm telling you how the law is interpreted. Install OS X on an unauthorized computer and you're in breach of contract. If you have any other questions about EULAs, I honestly suggest you contact a lawyer. This argument is getting really tiring.
You feel like people are getting screwed because they believe they're buying a copy of some software when in fact they're not.
Should read: they're buying a copy of the software, but their rights become limited once they agree to the EULA. This is first year contract law stuff.
The general process works like this:
Step 1: Customer buys software.
Step 2: Customer installs software.
Step 3: Customer agree to contract as part of installing software.
Step 4: Contract trumps copy-rights.
Step 5: Customer becomes subject to the terms of the contract.
Even if you haven't paid, you've indicated you acceptance of deal 1, unencumbered food. For them to switch to deal 2 without warning is as unsupportable as giving you a different meal.
You'd have to show relevant damages to sue for promissory estoppel. "But I was reaaaallly hungry" doesn't make for a compelling tort.
Do you know of any law that says software purchases, even when they appear as outright sales, aren't?
The court held that Zeidenberg did accept the offer by clicking through. The court noted, "He had no choice, because the software splashed the license on the screen and would not let him proceed without indicating acceptance." The court stated that Zeidenberg could have rejected the terms of the contract and returned the software. The court, in addition, noted the ability to and "the opportunity to return goods can be important" under the UCC.
Completely? Even though copyright statute has a specific allowance for the copying of software to avoid any question of needing to license it. 17-117a1
Notwithstanding 17-106. I'm not clear what your point is here.
Anyway, I understand where you're coming from. You feel like people are getting screwed because they believe they're buying a copy of some software when in fact they're not. The case law is tough for people to get their heads around, but it doesn't make it any less valid. There are clearly areas that the courts (and congress) haven't fleshed out yet: do you have the absolute right to return the software if you don't agree to the EULA? How will companies ultimately be obliged to package the EULA? etc. But the general acceptance of EULAs as enforceable contracts is a question that's long been answered.
But something you already own has no power to force you to sign a contract to use it.
No one's forcing you to accept the license agreement. If you don't like it, you can take the software back. Whether or not you'll get your money back is a completely different discussion (as I've told someone else, I fully support the idea that you should be able to return software if you don't agree to the EULA).
Copyright law specifically says no license is required for the owner of a copy to use it, EULAs are a failed concept.
This is a non-sequitur. IP law is completely different for software vis a vis books, movies, and CDs. I know of no law that states you are not bound by the terms of a license agreement on software you purchase and install.
Anyway, I think you're confusing the way the world should work with the way it does work.
How can you be bound by a contract AFTER the sale is already done?
Try to look at it this way. When you buy software down at your local big box shop, you get two things: a copy of the software, and a license/contract to use the software. The courts have ruled that the DoFS means you can sell your copy to anyone you want, or burn it, or have sex with the hole in the CD...whatever you please. That said, when you install the software (or in some cases open the packaging on the individual CD's) you must agree to a EULA. More and more this comes in the form of a scroll-down box where you select "I agree" (IIRC, this is what Apple does). Usually the terms of this contract prohibit you from selling your copy of the software again. They also prohibit you from transferring your license to anyone else. Obviously terms vary by license, but those two are almost universally the case. The important point is that by installing the software, you've agreed to a contract with the software company. If you break the terms of the contract, you're breaking the law.
But the supreme court has already shot down the concept of contracts after the fact
That's a given. Almost all EULAs aren't contracts after the fact. They require explicit agreement (scroll down, click "I agree", etc.). The courts have struck down strict shrink wrap licensing whereby you agree to a license you haven't yet read, buy this isn't what the OP or anyone else was talking about. He was asserting that the DoFS somehow excludes him from being bound by the terms of the EULA even though he has to agree to it to install the software. It doesn't.
just a few idiot judges who think software is somehow different that music cd or book is all
Software is different from a music CD or book. People who install software are bound by license agreements (contracts); readers and music listeners are not.
You must have misread my comment. As I've already mentioned, "You can buy the software, leave it unopened, and sell it to anyone else you please." It's when you agree to the EULA that you become bound by its terms. In the case of OS X, you must agree to the EULA before you install it.
Yes. The chicken/egg problem of shrink wrap licensing has been discussed ad nauseum in these parts. But I was speaking specifically to palegray.net's claim that the doctrine of first sale somehow allows him to violate the terms of the EULA. It does not.
All they're doing is shifting the illegality to the consumer. The OS X EULA will still be violated, but that duty will fall to the buyer, so Open Tech is covered legally...maybe.
If you're curious how this is going to come out in court, my bet is that Open Tech will still probably have to close shop for a couple of reasons. Fist, Apple has really deep pockets. They can afford to mire Open Tech in years of costly legal battles if they so choose. And they will choose to. Why? Because if Apple loses their hardware monopoly, they lose the majority of their revenue stream.
Secondly, and probably the legal argument that might sink Open Tech: if they truly try to brand these boxes as Mac clones, then the company exists solely to help circumvent copyright law (again, this will be Apple's legal argument). Courts have ruled in other cases that this type of activity is illegal. Case in point: head shops can sell "water pipes" for tobacco, but "bongs" are illegal. So if Open Tech claims to sell "barebones computers" they're probably in the clear. If they claim to sell "Mac clones" then methinks they're going to find themselves in deep legal water. If you're curious how Apple is going to frame it...see point #1 above.
Understand that when you get the software you're not actually purchasing a copy of the software. You're purchasing a license to use the software.
The doctrine of first sale protects you with regard to the media (or the license in the box, technically). You can buy the software, leave it unopened, and sell it to anyone else you please. Opened software is another matter. Once you've cracked the shrink wrap and agreed to the EULA, you're bound by its terms. This has been upheld by many courts, particularly because it's been made clear that you're not purchasing a "copy" of the software, but rather a license to use the software. You can still be held liable for violating the terms of the license. It's a sad fact, but this kind of licensing scheme is how software companies circumvented the DoFS in the first place.
If you want to talk about whether or not you should have the right to sell your license then you've got a good point, one that I definitely agree with. But I think it's important that folks recognize the distinction between the doctrine of first sale and current EULA law.
Yeah, I think that was pretty obvious. I was kind of disappointed no one actually mentioned that in the dialog. "Hey, we have these triggers, and a psycopath tells us they're connected to explosives. And that's all we know. Hmm...yeah, let's totally pull the trigger."
To be honest, a lot of the Joker's stuff felt a little too...um...Saw 2 for my tastes. "Oh hey! Look. Here's a zany trap, but even if you win, you still lose!"
Prediction markets are still very "new" and participation is low. This is problematic for a couple of reasons. Primarily, prediction markets only work when there are arbitrage opportunities for individuals who actually know what's going to happen. They'll buy the security in question, and it's price will rise to the expected level. In any event - if insiders aren't controlling the price of a security then it's price won't reflect its real value.
The problem comes in when no one really knows the answer. People will buy and sell these prediction securities on hunches or what not, but the actual price will not truly be reflective of the outcome of, say, an election. Case in point, a month after John McCain had secured the Republican nomination for President, his likelihood of becoming President was still trading at around $.39 (Intrade works on fractions of a dollar). Any reasonably intelligent person should have been able to forecast this price would shoot up to at least $.45 or better once the Democrats chose a candidate - Consider that presidential elections are usually around 50/50.
The question was: why weren't people snatching these securities up like hotcakes? I still haven't been able to figure that out. But personally I think it proves the notion I heard someone else mention a while back. To paraphrase: these aren't prediction markets, they're extremely recent history markets.
Slashdot Mirror
Proper capitalism should mean that you try and maximise your profit by lowering the price and increasing sales.
Sort of. Video games are subject to monopolistic competition. Each producer has something that sets their product apart from others. For example, Halo 3 and TF2 aren't exact substitutes. As a result, producers have some say over the price of their product.
The long and short of it is that because of the way the game market is structured, it doesn't make sense for a video game producer to price their product as low as possible. Product differentiation means that firms will gain more profit by pricing their products above what would normally be the efficient price.
how'd you like to live with someone for 40 years and lose your house when he dies because you can't automatically inherit the place of residence?
You don't need new laws to fix that. You need a better lawyer and/or real estate agent. If you establish yourselves as joint tenants with rights of survivorship then whoever dies first leaves the property to the other. Unmarried couples do this all the time.
Put another way, the problem involving gays and lesbians not being able to visit each other in the hospital or other rights of survivorship is a contractual one. Most gays/lesbians want to address that issue via marriage and its surrounding privileges. By redefining the classical definition of marriage, they hope to bring about the implied contractual changes that come with it. Without stating my beliefs on gay marriage (for or against), I think these particular issues are better addressed in the realm of contract law itself. As an adult, I should be able to leave my house to whomever I choose. I should also be able to specify hospital visits from whoever I choose. Marriage has got nothing to do with it.
He's the head of the government.
You must be British.
Can you link to the proof of innocence? I'm not saying she's not, but I can't seem to find it in the links FTA. Most of the articles are very light on facts.
I looked it up last year and "ethics" and "morals" were two separate things.
You should be looking less at Wikipedia and more at Plato, Acquinas, and Kant. In truth, ethics is a subject that one has to study in order to understand the definition thereof.
Republicans don't seem as whiny to me as Democrats, possibly because Democrats rely on others (usually the government) to solve problems, and Republicans (used to, at least) rely on individual initiative. Of course, that last observation might be slightly controversial
It's not controversial, it's flame-bait. The argument of conservative reliance on individual initiative is a joke. Republicans simply rely on government to solve a different set of problems. Faith-based initiatives, abstinence-only education, a war in Iraq that costs $10 billion per month. Let's not even mention unfunded mandates like No Child Left Behind (admittedly a bi-partisan cock up).
I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans prefer deficits to taxes. Democrats at least have the stones to tax people for the money they want to spend.
I agree. I'm a doctor in Spain and the system works exactly that way. Here it's not the insurance companies, but the "benevolent health system" that press us into delaying or denying tests and treatments to people. The exact people that see a nice amount of their income substracted de facto by the health system.
Yes, but ceteris paribus, at least these people don't have to fight tooth and nail over copays, deductibles, or whether or not they're retroactively covered for procedures that have already been performed.
It's anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but I had knee surgery last year - the most painful part hasn't been the rehab, it's been dealing with my insurance company over coverage. Everyone I know has a story about getting treatment or a prescription that they believed their insurance covered, only to get billed by the provider months later because their claim was denied. The quality of care may be the same in a UHC system, but at least we won't have to wonder: "I think I'm covered, but I can never be sure. Am I going to have to pay for this?"
Beware the Bradley Effect. If the polls are correct, then Obama will win the election in a landslide. That said, if they're not - and there's some evidence that every race will be tighter than they appear, then he may only win by a few votes (states). I'm hoping that the Bradley Effect is not a factor in this election, but god damn some people are racist.
Otherwise I reject the idea of income redistribution.
Aside from national defense, government's purpose is almost exclusively that of income redistribution. This comes often in the form of "correcting" externalities (subsidies, tax credits, or pigouvian taxation), but most people only complain when it comes in the form of direct transfer payments such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. My point here is simply that most people advocate throwing the baby out with the bath water when they complain about "income redistribution" (e.g. tax subsidies for $technology, or investment in $researchProgram) , which is not necessarily the most advisable course of action.
Personally, I'm not a fan of most of BHO's redistributive policies - where possible, markets are the most efficient policy. But right now I think this country's got bigger fish to fry, like the war in Iraq (get out), the war in Afghanistan (get back in), and civil liberties (get out).
I have a couple of books you should read.
Voting is a consumption good. You vote because it makes you feel good about yourself, not because it actually makes a difference.
This crisis doesn't need government intervention. That is to say we don't need to have a $13 trillion GDP or a stable economy for the next two years. But I'd sure as hell call them "nice to have."
The biggest problem I see right now is that most people have absolutely zero idea of how this calamity is going to affect them. They believe that the losses are largely either imaginary, or limited to some financial segment of the population that will never concern them. They believe, as some argue rationally ignorant individuals ought to, that this won't ever affect them.
When the recession comes (well, when it deepens) these same people will blame "Wall Street Fat Cats" and the government having gotten us into this mess in the first place. They will never blame themselves for opposing the bailout or for not understanding the inherent interconnectedness of the "streets" they're so fond of talking about.
For what it's worth, the bailout was a shit sandwich. It was a terrible plan, with too much cruft and not enough oversight in the right places. But it was definitely better than playing Russian roulette with the economy. There's a slim chance that the credit markets will come back without getting rid of the toxic securities floating around - and if they do, the naysayers will have been right, but for the wrong reasons.
I do have to take issue with this thought, though:
That's because you think that modern financiers are either rational or competent at what they do. They are neither.
Modern financiers know very well what they are doing, and if you were in their shoes you would have been wise to do exactly the same. The first lesson of economics is this: people respond to incentives. The problem this time, as with most crises is that the incentives were skewed.
But do you have any reason for thinking shrink-wrap licenses are valid other than recent precedent? The precedents I've seen claimed to support shrink-wrap licenses all have serious flaws if you examine them.
Case law is part of the law (see: stare decisis).
Look, IANAL, but I helped get my fiancee through three years of law school (part of the reason IANAL). She's done work specifically on IP law and EULAs. I have several friends that are lawyers that work on this kind of stuff. I have more than a passing understanding of the law in these areas. So please, trust me when I say you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the law here.
You can argue until you're blue in the face about how judges should rule, or how the law should be interpreted. That's what you've been doing in this thread, and others. But I'm telling you how the law is interpreted. Install OS X on an unauthorized computer and you're in breach of contract. If you have any other questions about EULAs, I honestly suggest you contact a lawyer. This argument is getting really tiring.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
You feel like people are getting screwed because they believe they're buying a copy of some software when in fact they're not.
Should read: they're buying a copy of the software, but their rights become limited once they agree to the EULA. This is first year contract law stuff.
The general process works like this:
Step 1: Customer buys software.
Step 2: Customer installs software.
Step 3: Customer agree to contract as part of installing software.
Step 4: Contract trumps copy-rights.
Step 5: Customer becomes subject to the terms of the contract.
Even if you haven't paid, you've indicated you acceptance of deal 1, unencumbered food. For them to switch to deal 2 without warning is as unsupportable as giving you a different meal.
You'd have to show relevant damages to sue for promissory estoppel. "But I was reaaaallly hungry" doesn't make for a compelling tort.
Do you know of any law that says software purchases, even when they appear as outright sales, aren't?
Yes, ProCD v Zeidenberg as one example. FTA:
Completely? Even though copyright statute has a specific allowance for the copying of software to avoid any question of needing to license it. 17-117a1
Notwithstanding 17-106. I'm not clear what your point is here.
Anyway, I understand where you're coming from. You feel like people are getting screwed because they believe they're buying a copy of some software when in fact they're not. The case law is tough for people to get their heads around, but it doesn't make it any less valid. There are clearly areas that the courts (and congress) haven't fleshed out yet: do you have the absolute right to return the software if you don't agree to the EULA? How will companies ultimately be obliged to package the EULA? etc. But the general acceptance of EULAs as enforceable contracts is a question that's long been answered.
But something you already own has no power to force you to sign a contract to use it.
No one's forcing you to accept the license agreement. If you don't like it, you can take the software back. Whether or not you'll get your money back is a completely different discussion (as I've told someone else, I fully support the idea that you should be able to return software if you don't agree to the EULA).
Copyright law specifically says no license is required for the owner of a copy to use it, EULAs are a failed concept.
This is a non-sequitur. IP law is completely different for software vis a vis books, movies, and CDs. I know of no law that states you are not bound by the terms of a license agreement on software you purchase and install.
Anyway, I think you're confusing the way the world should work with the way it does work.
How can you be bound by a contract AFTER the sale is already done?
Try to look at it this way. When you buy software down at your local big box shop, you get two things: a copy of the software, and a license/contract to use the software. The courts have ruled that the DoFS means you can sell your copy to anyone you want, or burn it, or have sex with the hole in the CD...whatever you please. That said, when you install the software (or in some cases open the packaging on the individual CD's) you must agree to a EULA. More and more this comes in the form of a scroll-down box where you select "I agree" (IIRC, this is what Apple does). Usually the terms of this contract prohibit you from selling your copy of the software again. They also prohibit you from transferring your license to anyone else. Obviously terms vary by license, but those two are almost universally the case. The important point is that by installing the software, you've agreed to a contract with the software company. If you break the terms of the contract, you're breaking the law.
But the supreme court has already shot down the concept of contracts after the fact
That's a given. Almost all EULAs aren't contracts after the fact. They require explicit agreement (scroll down, click "I agree", etc.). The courts have struck down strict shrink wrap licensing whereby you agree to a license you haven't yet read, buy this isn't what the OP or anyone else was talking about. He was asserting that the DoFS somehow excludes him from being bound by the terms of the EULA even though he has to agree to it to install the software. It doesn't.
just a few idiot judges who think software is somehow different that music cd or book is all
Software is different from a music CD or book. People who install software are bound by license agreements (contracts); readers and music listeners are not.
You must have misread my comment. As I've already mentioned, "You can buy the software, leave it unopened, and sell it to anyone else you please." It's when you agree to the EULA that you become bound by its terms. In the case of OS X, you must agree to the EULA before you install it.
Yes. The chicken/egg problem of shrink wrap licensing has been discussed ad nauseum in these parts. But I was speaking specifically to palegray.net's claim that the doctrine of first sale somehow allows him to violate the terms of the EULA. It does not.
All they're doing is shifting the illegality to the consumer. The OS X EULA will still be violated, but that duty will fall to the buyer, so Open Tech is covered legally...maybe.
If you're curious how this is going to come out in court, my bet is that Open Tech will still probably have to close shop for a couple of reasons. Fist, Apple has really deep pockets. They can afford to mire Open Tech in years of costly legal battles if they so choose. And they will choose to. Why? Because if Apple loses their hardware monopoly, they lose the majority of their revenue stream.
Secondly, and probably the legal argument that might sink Open Tech: if they truly try to brand these boxes as Mac clones, then the company exists solely to help circumvent copyright law (again, this will be Apple's legal argument). Courts have ruled in other cases that this type of activity is illegal. Case in point: head shops can sell "water pipes" for tobacco, but "bongs" are illegal. So if Open Tech claims to sell "barebones computers" they're probably in the clear. If they claim to sell "Mac clones" then methinks they're going to find themselves in deep legal water. If you're curious how Apple is going to frame it...see point #1 above.
Understand that when you get the software you're not actually purchasing a copy of the software. You're purchasing a license to use the software.
The doctrine of first sale protects you with regard to the media (or the license in the box, technically). You can buy the software, leave it unopened, and sell it to anyone else you please. Opened software is another matter. Once you've cracked the shrink wrap and agreed to the EULA, you're bound by its terms. This has been upheld by many courts, particularly because it's been made clear that you're not purchasing a "copy" of the software, but rather a license to use the software. You can still be held liable for violating the terms of the license. It's a sad fact, but this kind of licensing scheme is how software companies circumvented the DoFS in the first place.
If you want to talk about whether or not you should have the right to sell your license then you've got a good point, one that I definitely agree with. But I think it's important that folks recognize the distinction between the doctrine of first sale and current EULA law.
Yeah, I think that was pretty obvious. I was kind of disappointed no one actually mentioned that in the dialog. "Hey, we have these triggers, and a psycopath tells us they're connected to explosives. And that's all we know. Hmm...yeah, let's totally pull the trigger."
To be honest, a lot of the Joker's stuff felt a little too...um...Saw 2 for my tastes. "Oh hey! Look. Here's a zany trap, but even if you win, you still lose!"
Metacritic's score was dead on: 82/100.
I did.
Prediction markets are still very "new" and participation is low. This is problematic for a couple of reasons. Primarily, prediction markets only work when there are arbitrage opportunities for individuals who actually know what's going to happen. They'll buy the security in question, and it's price will rise to the expected level. In any event - if insiders aren't controlling the price of a security then it's price won't reflect its real value.
The problem comes in when no one really knows the answer. People will buy and sell these prediction securities on hunches or what not, but the actual price will not truly be reflective of the outcome of, say, an election. Case in point, a month after John McCain had secured the Republican nomination for President, his likelihood of becoming President was still trading at around $.39 (Intrade works on fractions of a dollar). Any reasonably intelligent person should have been able to forecast this price would shoot up to at least $.45 or better once the Democrats chose a candidate - Consider that presidential elections are usually around 50/50.
The question was: why weren't people snatching these securities up like hotcakes? I still haven't been able to figure that out. But personally I think it proves the notion I heard someone else mention a while back. To paraphrase: these aren't prediction markets, they're extremely recent history markets.
I was being sarcastic. It's pretty clear that Obama has been on the sharp end of a lot of sticks in this campaign.